2014 (6) TMI 880 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Denial of input tax credit on the ground that registration certificate of the supplier has been cancelled ab initio - Held that - Ms. Parikh, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant-Dealer, seeks permission to withdraw the present Tax Appeal with a liberty to approach the learned Tribunal by way of Rectification Application and to point out before the learned Tribunal that there was sufficient material / evidence on record to show that there was actual movement of goods on which Input Tax Credit was sought. - Application allowed to be withdrawn.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to the judgment and order of Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal
2. Consideration of grounds challenging violation of natural justice
3. Non-consideration of relevant facts and evidence
4. Denial of Input Tax Credit
5. Validity of penalty levied by assessing officer
6. Retroactive effect of tax amendment
7. Application of precedents by Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal

Analysis:
1. The appellant challenged the judgment of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal, raising various issues. These included the failure of the Tribunal to address grounds challenging the violation of natural justice, the lack of consideration of relevant facts and evidence, and the denial of Input Tax Credit. The appellant also questioned the validity of the penalty imposed by the assessing officer.

2. The appellant argued that the Tribunal did not properly consider the evidence presented regarding the movement of goods and the legitimate nature of the transactions. The appellant contended that there was sufficient material on record to support the claim for Input Tax Credit, which the Tribunal failed to acknowledge.

3. The issue of the retroactive effect of the tax amendment was also raised. The appellant questioned whether Input Tax Credit could be denied based on non-payment of tax by the dealer in the absence of the relevant amendment. This raised a significant legal question regarding the retrospective application of tax laws.

4. The appellant further contested the Tribunal's failure to follow and discuss relevant judgments from the Gujarat High Court and the Supreme Court. The appellant argued that these precedents were applicable to the case and should have been considered by the Tribunal in its decision-making process.

5. During the proceedings, the Advocate General pointed out that the issues raised in the appeal were addressed in a previous decision by the Division Bench of the Court. However, the appellant's representative argued that the specific circumstances of the case warranted a different outcome, emphasizing the evidence of goods movement presented.

6. Ultimately, the appellant sought to withdraw the Tax Appeal with the intention of filing a Rectification Application before the Tribunal. The Court granted permission for the withdrawal, allowing the appellant to address any mistakes or oversights in the evidence already on record. The Court refrained from expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, leaving it to be considered by the Tribunal in future proceedings.